On Mon, 26 May 2008 22:27:10 -0700 (PDT), crisology <crisology@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>On May 26, 10:04 am, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 03:05:11 -0700 (PDT), crisology <crisol...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>> >On May 18, 1:01 am, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 16 May 2008 18:01:30 GMT, "sumbeotch at s***bum dot ***"
<youwantmya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> >> The meat industry
>>
>> >Is largely government subsidized.
>>
>> Good for all of us.
>
>all of us = those who would rather be fed than feed themselves.
>
>all of them = the ones feeding all of you.
All of us.
>> >> provides life for the animals that it
>> >> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
>> >> as animals do in other habitats.
>>
>> >Well, it's a little different process in the wild..
>>
>> Yes. In the wild the animals never have food provided
>
>Wild animals live much longer/naturally.
Since most wild animals die as infants or very young,
the average lifespan would be much less.
>> so they often have to struggle and suffer over food.
>
>So they adapt to feed themselves
They suffer more than domestic animals.
>& the species evolves thusly & enjoy
>natural pleasure of suckling, mating, longer life, etc
>.
>> They also have to do so over territory"
>
>And earn mating priveleges.
They suffer more.
>> with no shelter or safety from the elements or predators
>
>Except for the fake predator/human hunters (who can't even digest meat
>like real predators) who castrate/brand/mutilate/slaughter before even
>reaching breeding age, etc.
· Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·
>> They also often suffer from fear their entire lives, in contrast
>> to most livestock who never live in fear at all. Etc...
>
>Everyone who enjoys freedom does so at the risk of fear.
They suffer from it more than livestock.
>> >> People who want to contribute to decent lives for
>> >> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
>> >> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
>> >> being vegan.
>>
>> >What could be healthier with a lower impact on ecology than to grow at
>> >least some of your own organic food? I have edible fruit/gr*****/
>> >leaves or veg in my yard every day of the yr.
>>
>> That certainly does nothing to help any livestock.
>
>I don't know about your "live$tock" profits
There are none.
>but it certainly does help
Certainly not any livestock.
>ecology and relieves dependency upon wildlife you are interested in
>killing for no nutritional/environmental reason as people can grow
>more of their own food.
>
>> >A lot of the fruit I
>> >grow are native species/easy to grow. I only harvest what I eat
>> >immediately/nothing wasted & I don't mind sharing w/native scavengers.
>> >I'm fortunate to live during a time that I can also obtain a large
>> >variety of species of fruit trees that produce fruit with short shelf
>> >lives (otherwise never found in stores). The vast area needed for cow
>> >grazing isn't nearly as efficient, natural or healthy. No need/no
>> >place for the extra excrement in my yard from any cow processing
>> >industry.
>>
>> >> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>> >> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>> >> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>> >> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>> >> get thousands of dairy servings.
>>
>> >For the "conscientious consumers of animal products" What do the
>> >calves get?
>>
>> Life, and whatever experiences go along with it.
>>
>> >Matter is neither created nor destroyed.
>>
>> Do you think life is?
>
>No. This was the point. To inefficiently cycle through the biomass to
>raise "livestock" (don't you mean free ranging animals?)
Not necessarily since everyone I've talked to who is familiar
with them feels that cattle enjoy being in the stock yards eating
grain all day, so I feel that even grain finished cattle have lives
of positive value which should be taken into consideration.
>it requires
>resources/land that aren't available on a widespread basis. If you can
>afford free range meat then that is a choice (an environmental &
>nutritional compromise to available fruit that can be grown from home
>but a choice, nonetheless). Every time you go up the trophic level for
>food, you make a greater ecological impact.
>
>> >> Due to the influence of farm
>> >> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>> >> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>> >> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>> >> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
>> >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>>
>> >You don't get the same amounts of available animal byproducts from
>> >grass fed cows since they take up to 4 yrs longer to raise. The prices
>> >of all the plywood, fertilizers, pesticides, etc (from animals) would
>> >increase 4-fold. The grass fed cow eating industry would soon be
>> >subsidized at least as much as the current feedlot industry.
>>
>> Okay.
>
>OK
>
>> >Are you comparing organic meat to non-organic veg too? Cow (non-
>> >native) grazing "habitat" requires vast areas of land
>>
>> Land on which wildlife has been MUCH more welcome than in
>> crop fields with every farmer I've ever discussed it with.
>
>My alternative to preserving wildlife (you totally ignored) was to use
>the backyards already carved out of habitat to provide food sources
>(fruit/veg) instead of taking more habitat for additional sources of
>nutritionally inferior food (meat). This way, wildlife is not only
>"welcome" but REMAINS IN HABITAT.
Both methods do fine.
>> the farmers I've discussed it have been happy
>
>I know, I know... You want to make money but I'm saying regardless of
>what your meat industry friends want, a solution to diminished
>wildlife/dependency upon slaughtering captive animals is to grow some
>of your own food.
No thanks.
>> and appeared
>> sort of proud to see deer in grazing with their cattle, while those
>> same farmers would be bothered to the point of wanting to kill
>> them when they got in their crop fields.
>
>And I already told you I'm happy to see the raccoon (like last night)
>in my backyard stealing fruit/veg.
People who are doing it for real can't afford to let wildlife
destroy their crops.
>The difference is I didn't have to
>go out and carve out more of his habitat and kill additional animals.
If you don't, someone else will have to do it instead.
>Are you really looking for solutions to preserving wildlife or are you
>trying to sup****t a meat industry despite nutritional/environmental
>issues?
I'm pointing out aspects of the situation that eliminationists
don't want people to think about.
>> >a fraction
>> >of the natural predators (coyote/native cats, etc) surviving today are
>> >already being out competed/extinguished without much protection for
>> >this reason.
>>
>> Good.
>
>Good that you kill wildlife?
Some of them.
>What's your aim,
To get people to consider some of the facts that eliminationists
don't want them to think about.
>besides money?
>
>> >& still a compromise to picking local apples/pawpaws/blueberries, etc.
>>
> Still hunting for a reason (nutritional or environmental) to hunt
>while grazing,
> Chris
|
